User talk:Bexor/Armor Project/2
Notes Notes will be removed once they are put into the main article. *'What term should be in the used by section? Insignia? All 6 functionals? All? Specific types?' :*For armor that uses insignias: Insignia :*For armor that uses all functions link each function :*Gladiator's Armor etc *'What should descriptions say? They shouldn't have information that is listed elsewhere in the article (like npc article says). Do they need to say location, especially when there are many locations?' :*Information included in the description should not be taken from elsewhere in the article (ie location, campaign). It may summarise what armor types use the art (for example saying that the art is used by all armor types in a certain campaign is acceptable). It should also state whether it is Ascended armor or not. *'Separate Acquisition into campaigns and then into crafter/collector. Module for crafted table?' :*Acquisition -> Prophecies / Factions / Nightfall -> Collectors / Crafting *'Armor images should all be undyed apart from those used in "Colorable areas" section.' :*Overview and component images should be named gray and dyed images should be named dyed. *'Is there any need to have overviews with and without helms? We don't need to see your character's hair.' :*Overview and colorable areas with helm. Component view will adequately show without helm. *'Armor images ideally should be 200x600. Maybe need a different size for warriors.' :*Male warrior images at 300x600 because they are so wide. (Width of 225 to match height of female 200x600 images at 150 width). *'Collector tables need to be revised to match crafting tables. Perhaps a different background colour to distinguish them more (white is a bit plain).' *:If you look at the warrior armor articles you can see that some don't have collector acquisition listed on the page. And look at Warrior_collector_armor. That needs to be fixed up too... Updated:[[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 02:53, 30 December 2006 (CST) :I agree on posting crafting before collectors information. The helm thing is good, Overview should include helm, component view should show without. But, it would be nice to have a separate picture of just the front of the helm in Component view (and same with masks, and scars, and monk tattoos etc) so you can get a better look at it. A zoomed in version, so to say. Just some small opinions on this. — Stylva (talk)( ) 15:04, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::Component view will have helm views (front/side/back depending on what type it is) but I forgot to say that there. :o - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 15:41, 2 January 2007 (CST) Ideas/questions Very good points brought up there, many of the things that's been bugging me for long. I just want to ask one thing, what do you think about the clear-template? As it is now, I go around often and add it just before the crafting/acquisition section (another problem here, should the section be named crafting or acquisition or what?). Since not all people use very big resolution, the crafting tables will look odd and get somewhat hard to read if they happen to be placed beside the armor box. The template fixes that issue, but it doesn't look that good. A small issue, but still, it bugs me, so I thought I would ask. Another thing, category naming. Some categories are named like Category:Standard armor and some like Category:Luxon Armor. Capitalization of "armor" or not? I've also been thinking about if it is possible to add a template for the crafting table. Maybe it would just be too much, I don't know. But just to put in location name, crafter name, cost in figures and unit cost for the armor, and the template would produce the cost for all pieces and total cost too. And put it in a nice way. Could make it alot harder for new wikians to edit, but also alot easier, since the table functions here aren't that easy to get. One good thing would be that it would be very easy to get all crafting sections standardized, and if we would decide on a new layout, just change the template accordingly. Some thoughts, sorry for the long post, I like this part of the wiki alot :) — Stylva (talk)( ) 13:53, 28 December 2006 (CST) :Ahh this is why it's good to have someone help me! I hadn't thought of this. :) :I have no idea about the clear template. I do think it's best to push the tables down though. Maybe there is something we can do to fill in that blank space. Also, once the icons are there, at least we get the benefit of the armor box shortening. :Take a look at GW:ULC. When you say "Standard armor" that's just a noun, so it's lower case, but when you say something like "Luxon Armor" that's an item/name so it should be capitalized. There's an example on the ULC page. :I think a template for the crafting tables would be a great idea. I think at the moment the tables are harder for new users to edit and add to than a template would be. :As for the section name, it should be Acquisition I believe, and then after put a subheading for Crafting or Collecting. If it can be found in dual campaigns the subheading should be the campaign, followed by crafting/collecting. :That raises a question though about adding collector acquisition in there. I know a lot of Proph armor has the collector stuff added, but did the Factions collectors get added in as well? I should check that. And should collectors be placed before crafting? I don't think the information is as useful, but it's there because of alphabetical order. :A lot of crafting boxes have a total section at the end. I like this cause people stop putting the numbers in the armor box. :P :I'll be working on this today (I also just realised the weapon articles are a mess - when they say acquisition people have put locations AND monsters, some only monsters and some have different subheadings and baaah messy). I don't have any experience with templates so I can't really do anything like that, but I'll make an example box. :) - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 02:45, 29 December 2006 (CST) ::There's a suggestion to split the style guide which I think is a good idea. Seeing as we're reworking everything I think we should do so as if the article was split. There's too much there on one page at the moment. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 03:05, 29 December 2006 (CST) :::Okok, armor first, weapons later ;) The thing that bothers me about Luxon Armor and Standard armor categories is that the Luxon Armor category list alot of items, and personally I would prefer to refer to those as "These are Luxon armors, one example is Monk Luxon Armor". Do you see my point? When referring to a single object, capitalization is good, but for me capitalization also signalizes just that, single objects, not a category of things. But English isn't my main language, so I may be wrong here according to English spelling rules. In Swedish (my main language) we don't use capitalization all that much =) :::Category:Ascended Armor, is that also a name or should it be a noun? That one really bothers me ;) :::I think I have found out a little about how templates work, I will look into it and read some more, to see if it is possible to use. :::Collectors information should be included wherever it is possible, IMO. And, yes, put before crafting, it just looks better if they are alphabetical =) — Stylva (talk)( ) 05:44, 29 December 2006 (CST) ::::I do see your point. That is interesting. Because it is a type, not an item. I would lean towards the lower case (Luxon armor) too then. But we would have to ask one of the category experts (like Aberrant) about it. ::::I would much prefer to have the collector tables beneath the crafting tables. They are often so large. And I would assume most people look at the pages looking to see where they can craft the armor. I know when I'm looking for collector armor I go and look for it under Collector. Plus the fact that all armor types can be crafted, but not all have collectors says to me that crafter tables should have precedent. ::::On a side note I have many Swedish friends! Unfortunately the only word I know is "kladdkaka" haha. :) One of my friends goes to University in Umea I think. She used to play GW too. I think another lives in Gotenberg. (I don't know how to make the letters with dots sorry). - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 07:29, 29 December 2006 (CST) Got sidetracked :So I still want opinions on the things at the top of this page. But most importantly I was wondering about these at the moment: :*Must collector come before crafter? I think the more pertinant information should be listed first (as every article has a crafter section, but not all have collectors). :*If the article doesn't have a collector and crafter section, do the subheadings need to be listed? :*The descriptions are bugging me. They really shouldn't repeat information, imo, but what else is there to say? They could describe what the armor looks like I suppose, and whether the armor is ascended or not (because it doesn't get listed in the armor box). Do they need to summarise the uses, because they're listed right next to the desc in the armor box. Things that need doing :*The categories are possibly misnamed. Luxon Armor should really be called Luxon armor (see discussion above) as it is a type of item, not an item, correct? But then the functions would have to be changed too I suppose. :*I think the function pages should be reworked. There are some armor functions with different names that do the same thing. Couldn't they be condensed into one article perhaps named after the corresponding insignia and then link to all the different armor art types? - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 23:18, 31 December 2006 (CST) ::My opinion on function articles is that they should be removed, all of them. And then reworked into something going with the insignias and their names. At the moment they are very uninformative, since they are quite confusing, with all the different names. If you take a look at Monk armor at the function section, I would like to move the Insignia names to the "Name" column and put the names already there under PvE name variants or something like that. And then tidy up the Insignia table so it nicely shows what function names corresponds to that Insignia function. I hope you understand what I mean, I just got home from New Years celebrating and I have a lot to read and consider atm ;) — Stylva (talk)( ) 15:04, 2 January 2007 (CST) :::I was thinking the same thing. Now that we have insignias it does seem a bit silly that all the functions are spread out. Because now the functions are the main name for each stat type. The only problem I can think of is when the insignias cross professions, though it can probably be worked around. It would probably just require a link to each armor type that can be crafted with those stats (a lot of links in some cases). :::Perhaps for example, Survivor insignia. It would list what it does. And then have a section for use or whatever. For each profession it would need to list campaigns and what art the insignia/function is available on. So for Prophecies whichever armor was + health. For factions, it can be used in all, so maybe link to a page that has just factions armor. For nightfall the same. :::I don't think the images are very useful on the insignia pages, because they are to me, very confusing. I switch between windows for an art and a function and get confused because they both have heaps of pictures. I think it should just contain text links. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 15:41, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::::I see your point.. and.. I agree. Aside from being confusing, they are a (sorry about the words) HELL to update and keep in nice shape. Away with images fron function, if I'm to decide. — Stylva (talk)( ) 15:46, 2 January 2007 (CST) Undye Hi great work has always but one thing annoy me. The game no longer use dye remover so I really don't like undye in the file name. What is your view on naming the files Gray?—'├ Aratak ┤' 18:49, 31 December 2006 (CST) :Sounds fine to me. If you wanna help me out with other stuff that would be good too. ;) - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 19:09, 31 December 2006 (CST) ::What about default? I feel there should be some compromise between grey and undyed, seeing as it is the default colour of new armor. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 19:22, 31 December 2006 (CST) :::Well the game use Gray not grey and I don't like default, it might change again and will not longer be default but it will always be gray.—'├ Aratak ┤' 19:24, 31 December 2006 (CST) ::::Good point. Maybe you can answer my question then about the dye. WEhen you buy armor it comes predyed grey right? When you make armor with a new character and pick the grey colour it's not grey is it? It looks more silver. Or could it be the different armors are dyed differently (mesmer ascalon and starter dilletantes)? And sorry about the grey, I'm used to spelling it that way. I'll make sure to use the a. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 19:41, 31 December 2006 (CST) :::::Not sure what you mean, you could just use gray dye on the armor and see if color change. I made the same error, I even use grey on some armor gallery, necro I think.—'├ Aratak ┤' 19:45, 31 December 2006 (CST) ::::::Well I heard if you buy new armor and try to dye it grey it doesn't work. But I bought Mesmer Ascalon Armor from factions and dyed it purple, then used grey on it again. And then I went to create a male mesmer to see if I could take new pics of the male armor (without having to buy the factions armor, instead using the starter armor from proph which has the same art). I noticed the grey colour for starter armor was very light and checked it on the female and it is a lot lighter than the grey stuff from factions. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 19:52, 31 December 2006 (CST) ::I saw the same think with one of the monk scalp, I bough the same version and then switch from the starter and I can see a change, one is lighter in color. So the starter one is lighter in color then the default color of the craftable one. I dont think it was the fact that you dyed it gray. Well hope you make sens out of this comment and I have to go for a NY party. :D —'├ Aratak ┤' 20:00, 31 December 2006 (CST) :::Have fun! :D - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 20:02, 31 December 2006 (CST) Votes I don't know if you have noted the votes of mine that you may already know, but I will post my votes anyway. * Remove icon images from art box - For * Remove images from function articles - I have other opinions on function articles here (see above), so no opinion * Get rid of alternating grey and white backgrounds in crafting tables - Against. IMO, it makes it easier to read. * Collector table underneath crafting table in acquisition - For. It will look better, I changed my mind :P * Rename of categories from "X Armor" to "X armor" - For — Stylva (talk)( ) 15:05, 2 January 2007 (CST) :Thank you! :D I will make that voting section a little clearer. :) - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 15:16, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::I feel tired today, so I'll only give a vote about what you asked me about on my talk page. I've not got another example than armor pages where several colours are used in a table, but I wished there was. In my opinion tables get very difficult to read without those. I can't decide if it's worse in Internet Explorer or in Mozilla FireFox, but I do not like it. Although, the reason I changed back the Mesmer Ascalon Armor article is that I didn't know about what you said and I want all armor pages to look as alike as possible. ::My vote: Keep the grey and white backgrounds in the crafting tables. ::— Helena 16:27, 2 January 2007 (CST) :::Heh. I'll copy-paste Stylva's list, and add my response. :::* Remove icon images from art box - Dunno what those are. :::* Remove images from function articles - For. It's redundant if we have an (art) page for it. '' :::* Get rid of alternating grey and white backgrounds in crafting tables - '''Against.' Same reason as Stylva. :::* Collector table underneath crafting table in acquisition - Meh. Don't care either way, I almost never get Collector armor... :::* Rename of categories from "X Armor" to "X armor" - For :::-Auron 22:52, 2 January 2007 (CST) Templates I am currently educating myself on template making. Do people think it would be convenient with a template for the crafting tables? If so, someone expert on templates could make it if they have time, but I will make a try in my namespace over the next few days. Remember, I'm a newbie on templates, so it will take time. I think it would make it alot easier for everyone if there was a template. — Stylva (talk)( ) 16:05, 2 January 2007 (CST) :I can barely use templates, let alone make them, lol. I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I think it would be a great idea. I'm not sure who would be a good choice to ask about it. Perhaps PanSola, as he was a major contributor to the armor art box. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 16:20, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::Template aren't very hard. the problem I see would be make it easy to edit. We would end up with a lot of parameters since some armor have many place to craft them, many differents requirement in material and tat numbres change from on armor to another. It can be done but not sure if its that convieniant.—'├ Aratak ┤' 16:28, 2 January 2007 (CST) :::I suppose any template that would allow that much customization would just be like copying and pasting lines of the table and filling the correct information in anyway. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 16:35, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::::Actualy no, the table would have to be created separatly with the template refering to them. Its a lot of trouble at the moment to create a table in wikicode inside a template. So if we want to create one table it would be easy but to attach a new row is hard since the template see the pipe in the table as a pipe for her to stop reading. I would have to check if we can have spare row in a table that do not show with a certain parameters.—'├ Aratak ┤' 16:39, 2 January 2007 (CST) Dyed Do you think we need dyed component view? I just relised some armors you cant see all the effects when the set is worn at once (eg Mesmer Hose). - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 07:45, 3 January 2007 (CST) :I think colorable areas should always be component view, preferably almost the same pictures and poses as they are in the undyed component view. That way, it's more visible. Mostly you dont need to see the whole armor dyed to get the picture, just one piece. Also, component is great for those only buying parts of the armor, for example. — Stylva (talk)( ) 08:43, 3 January 2007 (CST) ::Well think you just need an idea how dye affect the armor and most piece that you can't see with the full armor on wouldnt be seen with other armor set too. I think that the simplest stuff is best.—'├ Aratak ┤' 09:33, 3 January 2007 (CST) :::I'll explain my view a little more. If we begin to do that we will end up with a piece by piece gallery. That will even be harder for formating and size, a pain for normal user to do ( they don't even try to have a plain background so I doubt that this much rule will make them help us) and just end up with too big articles that don't have much value.—'├ Aratak ┤' 09:40, 3 January 2007 (CST) ::::I like the component view very much. -- (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2007 (CST) :::::Sure, its more info but I'm just afraid we will end up over doing it. If we do that why not a both side, back, front, side with different angle, top view and view from below ;) ok maybe I'm seying this to big but if we are looking to have a standard most component vary a lot in size it woul would be a lot of trouble. I just think thing should stay simple. —'├ Aratak ┤' 09:54, 3 January 2007 (CST) ::::::Well my goal was to make the articles more concise. At the moment there are ones with overview without helm, overview with helm, component view, dyed overview, dyed component view, headpiece and dyed headpiece. Frankly I think it's going a bit too far. ::::::If we do add in this, it is liable to make the pages a lot longer and more complicated. Generally if a piece of armor isn't visible when all are equipped, in 80% of cases that won't matter because it wont be shown. But there are people who, for instance, buy mesmer canthan hose to go with their 15k rogues top. But in that case, wouldn't the dyed canthan picture be reference enough to which parts of the armor dyed and how the dyed affects it? ::::::I also don't trust most users to submit images that are high enough quality or follow the guidelines that are set out. I see people breaking them everyday. I am quite happy to go through nearly all of the armor and take new screenshots, apart from the prestige armors which I just can't afford (I don't really have much money and paying 500g for dye for just 1 set is bad enough as it is). But before I start that I want to know exactly what images are going to be required for the galleries. ::::::So to be a little more concise, I think that we shouldn't have dyed component view. I think that the galleries are there to document the art, not dye effects, and what we already have is enough. It is easy enough for people to buy the cheap versions of armor and test dye on it with the preview window if it is that important to them. - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 10:11, 3 January 2007 (CST) :::::::That is true, with the new dye preview it's alot easier to try out dye. Before, the "colorable areas" was much more important to show what kind of material the armor was and how they dye would affect different parts of the armor. If we have a good, undyed component view, we probably wont need a dyed component view also. But still, I would like it, but I see reasons not to have it. To take armor pictures is a very big hassle just as it is now. The style and formatting guide is NOT good linked in a way that helps people find the guidelines on armor screenies. And personally I have problems with making good pictures with the right width and height, I simply don't know how to, my Photoshop don't want to work with me all the time. And, if you don't even have Photoshop (or similar) but just Paint, I can just imagine how hard it is to make it an exact pixelwidth. Oh.. going off-topic here. But my point is, the less pictures that needs to be taken, the better for the contributors. — Stylva (talk)( ) 10:27, 3 January 2007 (CST) ::::::::A good point. A simple overview of the dyed set from front back and possibly sides is enough. -- (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2007 (CST) Crafting box template Here are my first attempts on making a crafting box template. I know it should be possible to put in more rows, that doesnt show if they are not specified, but I haven't figured it out yet. And I can't get the Cost-template to work with me yet. Here are the template and the output — Stylva (talk)( ) 07:24, 4 January 2007 (CST) :Cost-template is working in my template now *happy* — Stylva (talk)( ) 07:38, 4 January 2007 (CST) ::Awesome! It's looking very good so far. :) You've certainly accomplished a lot already. :) - [[User:Bexor|'BeXoR']] 09:56, 4 January 2007 (CST) :::The #if's are taking over my world... ;) :::Some mroe updates, if someone is interested. Still working on putting in ability for a third material, and for second and third material on different headgear costs. I'm considering not counting headgear in the total column if it's different materials than the other parts. The reason is mainly Monk Ascended Luxon Armor and the likes, because I have no good way to calculate all the jade together, but not the other materials. :::And please, if someone has an idea on how to easily tell the template how many rows should be included and how to format them, enlighten me! — Stylva (talk)( ) 10:57, 4 January 2007 (CST) ::::The only way I know to add rows in a template is to hide them inside another template. Then you can use #if and refer to the template.—'├ Aratak ┤' 11:47, 4 January 2007 (CST)